Thermoforming - SPE Thermoforming Division

Transcription

®
Thermoforming
Quarterly
A JOURNAL OF THE THERMOFORMING DIVISION OF THE SOCIETY OF PLASTIC ENGINEERS
FOURTH QUARTER 2012
n
VOLUME 31
®
n
NUMBER 4
Post Conference Edition
Wrapping Up 2012 in Style
INSIDE …
The Business of Thermoforming: Industrial Investments
pages 10-13
ANTEC Paper: Liquid Crystal Polymer
pages 14-18
2012 Conference Review
page 20
WWW.THERMOFORMINGDIVISION.COM
Thermoforming QUARTERLY 1
2 thermoforming quarterly
Thermoforming
Quarterly®
FOURTH QUARTER 2012
VOLUME 31 n NUMBER 4
Wrapping Up 2012 in Style
Contents
n Departments
Chairman’s Corner x 2
Thermoforming in the News x 4
University News x 26
Front Cover
n Features
ibit thickness
rials lose melt
melting point.
her energy to
# #"* *$
ous polymers
e range than
nsition, which
ooled rapidly
The Business of Thermoforming x 10-13
Understanding Industrial Investment Decision-Making
Page 18
ANTEC Paper x 14-18
Thermoformable Liquid Crystal Polymer (LCP)
Industry Practice x 20
cuum forming
sted. Vacuum
10 shows a
ickness in the
indicates that
30 mm
mple
Conclusions
Page 20
so formed at
11 shows an
12 shows an
Thermoformable LCP shows very high melt viscosity
and high heat deflection temperature. It can be extruded
into sheets for thermoforming. Due to its unique melt
transition, compared with semi-crystalline or amorphous
polymers, thermoformable LCP resin needs special
processing conditions for extruding quality sheets and
forming good parts. For TF-LCP discussed in this paper,
the sheet extrusion melt temperature is about 345-360oC
and the forming temperature range is about 320-340oC.
The TF-LCP has good melt strength and elasticity based
on thermoformability tests. Due to its rapid heating and
cooling characteristics, special means for heat retention is
needed during forming. Vacuum forming is preferred
because of fast forming cycle and minimum heat loss.
rm tray by
1.
SPE Thermoforming Division’s 21st Annual Conference Report
Industry Practice x 21
Thermoforming Continues to Create Job Opportunities
References
2.
3.
4.
+$ * 1(#%*(%& '+ (.)*"
%".#()2())01)
( ) +,$" 1%".#( -*(+) %$2 th Ed.,
Hanser Gardner (2001
#) (%$ 1$%"%. % (#%%(# $2
Hanser Verlag (1996)
M. Mogilevsky, Polymer Engineering and Science,
Vol. 38, 322-329 (1998)
Page 7
Page 24
n In This Issue
Gwen Mathis Named Emeritus Director x 7
2012 Conference x 24
In Memoriam - Bill Benjamin x 27
Editor
Conor Carlin
(617) 771-3321
cpcarlin@gmail.com
Sponsorships
Laura Pichon
(847) 829-8124
Fax (815) 678-4248
lpichon@extechplastics.com
Thermoforming Division
Executive Assistant
Gwen Mathis
(706) 235-9298
Fax (706) 295-4276
gmathis224@aol.com
Thermoforming Quarterly ® is published four times annually as an informational and educational bulletin to
the members of the Society of Plastics
Engineers, Thermoforming Division, and
the thermoforming industry. The name,
“Thermoforming Quarterly®” and its
logotype, are registered trademarks of the
Thermoforming Division of the Society
of Plastics Engineers, Inc. No part of this
publication may be reproduced in any
form or by any means without prior written permission of the publisher, copyright
holder. Opinions of the authors are their
own, and the publishers cannot be held
responsible for opinions or representations of any unsolicited material. Printed
in the U.S.A.
Thermoforming Quarterly® is registered
in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(Registration no. 2,229,747). x
2012 Parts Competition Winners x 28-29
Sponsorships x 36
A JOURNAL PUBLISHED EACH
CALENDAR QUARTER BY THE
THERMOFORMING DIVISION
OF THE SOCIETY OF
PLASTICS ENGINEERS
Conference Coordinator
Lesley Kyle
(914) 671-9524
lesley@openmindworks.com
F igure 12. Baking tray by thermoformable L C P
shapes were
me holes were
that an overge may relate
temperature,
temperatures
dow.
Thermoforming
Quarterly®
Page 29
www.thermoformingdivision.com
Cover Artwork courtesy of
Dallager Photography
All Rights Reserved 2012
Thermoforming
Quarterly®
Chairman’s Corner
Phil Barhouse
Looking Back
at 2012
I
enjoyed seeing all of
you at our 21st Annual
Thermoforming Conference
in Grand Rapids. For those
of you who did not attend,
you missed an excellent
conference. You can read all
about it in the Conference
Wrap-Up Report and see the
Parts Competition winners
in this issue. I would like
to thank our Conference
Chairs, Haydn Forward and
Lola Carere, and their entire
committee for the outstanding
work with this conference.
Next year’s conference will
be hosted in Atlanta, so mark
your calendars for September
9 -12. We have recently
revised this date to avoid
conflicts with other industry
events; so please check the
website for further details.
On behalf of the Board of
Directors, I wish to express
my deepest sympathy to
the Benjamin family on
the passing of Mr. Bill
Benjamin. Bill was President
of Benjamin Manufacturing
Company that he and his
wife Beverly started in 1961
(see page 27). Bill was a true
pioneer in the industry and
was a huge supporter of this
Division for many years. He
was named Thermoformer
of the Year in 2003 and
continued to attend board
meetings up until very
recently. I will personally miss
his warm friendly smile, the
advice and the guidance that
he gave me over the years. He
will be greatly missed.
candidates. This prestigious
honor will be awarded to an
individual who has made
significant contributions to
the thermoforming industry
in a technical, educational, or
managerial aspect capacity.
Nominees will be evaluated
prior to voting by the Board of
Directors at the February 2013
board meeting. Each of us in
the thermoforming industry
knows at least one person
whose contributions deserve
to be recognized in front of
their peers. Please feel free to
contact me or another board
member if you have questions
about this award.
On page 9, you will find the
form and nomination criteria
for the 2013 Thermoformer
of the Year. This is the
highest award that the
Board presents. Please help
us by identifying worthy
As always, I would like to
hear your ideas, comments
and feedback. x
Phil Barhouse
Are You
http://www.linked.com/
groups?gid=3992496&trk=myg
ugrp ovr
Group Name:
Thermoforming Division,
a subgroup of SPE
Moderator:
Mark Strachan
Trending Topics
(as of November 28, 2012)
1. Material selection: PP vs
HIPS for yogurt cups
2. Machinery options for
producing cups and lids
With over 380 members
and growing, the
Thermoforming Division is
using Linkedin to expand
the conversation. Meet
fellow professionals,
ask tough technical
questions, explore
related groups.
Join us today!
Thermoforming
Quarterly®
New Members
Pierre Albertyn
Polytech
Cape Town
Tawnya Suzanne Clark
GE Appliances
Louisville, KY
Daniel C. Robinson
PLI Inc.
Suwanee, GA
Tom Van Nortwick
Innovative Plastech, Inc.
Batavia, IL
Ed Anderson
Distinctive Molds
Henderson, CO
Matt Conway
ACI Plastics
Kansas City, MO
Yugi Ryosho
Mytex Polymers
Jeffersonville, IN
Anne Walker
Nova Chemicals
Monaca, PA
Jay Coventry
Boltaron
Dover, OH
Deepa Samkutty
Arlington, TX
Katie M. Wazny
SC Johnson
Bay City, MI
John Anthony
Andex
Escanaba, MI
Erasmo Avila
Impersealco S.A. de C.V.
Tultitlan, Estado de México
Hermes Azzo
Midwest Exchange Inc.
Gurnee, IL
Troy Beeman
ACI Plastics
Kansas City, MO
Beverly Bejamin
Benjamin Mfg.
Bellflower, CA
Ray Berg
Bushwacker, Inc.
Portland, OR
Kristen Board
GE Appliances
Louisville, KY
David A. Branscomb
John Deere Technology
Center
Dubuque, IA
LeBron Bright
Velux
Greenwood, SC
C. Matthew Brown
Poly Flex Products, Inc.
Farmington Hills, MI
Rich Camacho
Americhem, Inc.
Elgin, IL
Michael Cameron
Klockner Pentaplast
Sylvania, OH
Tony D. Centritto
Craft Originators, Inc.
Hamilton, Ontario
Shawn Andrew Chisholm
Neocon International
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Anne-Marie Chronas
Nu-B Inc.
St. Laurent, QC
Sam Cultrona
Plastics Machinery Group
Solon, OH
Caroline D’Allard
Styl’Monde
Pont D’Ain
Natalie DeGrace
uVu Technologies
Boca Raton, FL
Wesley J. Distefano
Creative Foam
Fenton, MI
Medhi M. Emad
Arkema Inc.
King of Prussia, PA
Tim Felton
Plastic Ingenuity
Maumelle, AR
Kate M. Quigley
State Garden
Chelsea, MA
Zvi Rapaport
Bushwacher
Portland, OR
John Rhoades
Placon
Fitchburg, WI
Rick Rial
Plas-Tech Thermoforming
Ltd.
Brandesburton, East Yorks
Kevin Andrew Richardson
Deltaform
Bridgewater, Somerset
Ben Ridley
Formit Services
Fountaindale, NSW
Bob Rindo
Hampel Corp.
Germantown, WI
Bill Schneider
Monark-Equipment
Auburn, MI
Steven Schulze
Industrial Recyclers
Sidney, OH
Rick Forbis
Battenfeld Cincinnati
Mint Hill, NC
Leon E. Sheridan
Crown Plastic
Festus, MO
Jason Froese
think4D
Altona, MB
Diego Garavito
Carvajal Empaques
Cali, Valle
Craig Smith
CPS Resources Inc.
Indian Trail, NC
Farzad Ghods
Carbures
Greenville, SC
Matt Stadtmueller
Bemis
Neenah, WI
Eric Givens
Hampel Corp.
Germantown, WI
Michael Staelgraeve
Dandy Pkg. Inc.
Monroe, MI
Tim Goins
American Airlines
Tulsa, OK
Ronald Staub
Say Plastics Inc.
McSherrystown, PA
Martijn Haex
Bosch Sprang BV
Sprang-Capelle
Jack L. Subel
The Fabri-Form Co.
New Concord, OH
Timothy J. Hague
Procter and Gamble
Cincinnati, OH
John Sugden
The Dow Chemical Co.
Midland, MI
Jack Hamer
Acrofab, Inc.
Zeeland, MI
Nik Taritas
Kydex LLC
Bartlett, IL
Allan Harris
Drader
Edmonton, AB
Barry Taylor
Concote Corp.
Coppell, TX
Heather Hawk
MAAC Machinery
Carol Stream, IL
Nick Thon
Dart Container
Lansing, MI
Michael Haynie
Velux
Greenwood, SC
Thomas Todebush
Brueckner Group USA
Warren, MI
Brent Allen Hedding
3M Co.
St. Paul, MN
Carol Trier-Black
SC Johnson
Bay City, MI
Allen Hendrix
Heritage Plastics
Fairmount, GA
Thermoforming
Quarterly®
Paul D. Hickey
Auburn Vacuum Forming
Co.
Auburn, NY
Amr Hosny
BariQ-A Raya Holding
Subsidiary
Giza
Andrew Hunt
Plastic Ingenuity
Maumelle, AR
Michael W. Irvin
Schutt Sports Mfg. Co.
Salem, IL
Rocky Jacobs
Concote Corp.
Tyler, TX
Michael David Joudrey
GN Thermoforming
Equipment
Chester, Nova Scotia
Jay Kumar
Universal Plastics
Holyoke, MA
Jason Newman
Brown Machine
Beaverton, MI
Rhys Lewis-Smith
Formit Services
Bellevue Hill, NSW
Scott W. Niedzwiecki
Sonoco Protective
Packaging
Dekalb, IL
Tony Y-Tsen Lo
Western Michigan
University
Portage, MI
Ted Owen
MSA Components, Inc.
Cincinnati, OH
Jared Lorenson
Display Pack
Grand Rapids, MI
Jeremy Phillips
Minimizer
Blooming Prairie, MN
Michael MacDonald
ODC Tooling and Molds
Waterloo, Ontario
Michael John Polansky
Innovative Plastech Inc.
Batavia, IL
Martin Mailloux
Plastique Art
Ste-Claire, Quebec
Andrew Webb
Insul-Fab, Div. of Concote
Corp.
Coppell, TX
Jaime Arturo Juliao
Propilco
Bogota, Cundinamarca
Luke McCarron
GN Thermoforming
Equipment
Chester, NS
James Karnes
Crown Plastics
Festus, MO
Dale Edward McCarthy
Yesco
Las Vegas, NV
Steve Kastner
Velux Greenwood
Greenwood, SC
Michael McConnaghy
OMV-USA
Elkhorn, WI
Nancy Kieffer
Plastics Unlimited Inc.
Preston, IA
Brian McFadyen
Craft Originators Inc.
Hamilton, Ontario
Chris Kirby
Creative Foam Corp.
Granger, IN
Robert McNeal
NcNeal Enterprises
San Jose, CA
Andrew K. Kitson
GDC, Inc.
Goshen, IN
Nick Mellentuin
Plastic Ingenity
Maumelle, AR
Rex Knechtly
McClarin Plastics, Inc.
Hanover, PA
New Members (continued)
Adam Melville
Formit Services
Fountaindale, NSW
Jared Korreckt
WNA
Chattanooga, TN
Michael Miller
Bellingham, WA
Steve Koski
Drader
Edmonton, AB
Ken Miner
ACI Plastics
Kansas City, MO
Dan Koster
Creative Plastics
Grand Haven, MI
Natalie Moorman
Carol Stream, IL
Joe Weber
Hampel
Germantown, WI
Marjorie Weiner
Society of Plastics
Engineers
Brooklyn, CT
Andrew Wiess
Vantage Plastics
Standish, MI
Dan Williams
Placon Corp.
Madison, WI
Mark Wilson
Plas-Tech Thermoforming
Ltd.
Brandesburton, East
Yorkshire
Kyle Thomas Wright
Clifton Park, NY
Wes Yandt
Multifab Inc.
Spokane Vly, WA
Robert W. Zachrich
The Fabri-Form Co.
New Concord, OH
Lincoln Zevallos
Plastic Package Inc.
Sacramento, CA
Why
Join?
I t h a s n e v e r b e e n m o re
important to be a member of
your professional society than
now, in the current climate of
change and volatility in the
plastics industry. Now, more
than ever, the information
you access and the personal
networks you create can and
will directly impact your future
and your career.
Active membership in SPE
– keeps you current, keeps
you informed, and keeps you
connected.
The question really
isn’t “why join?”
but …
Why
Not?
Thermoforming in the News
Plastic
Ingenuity
Buys Vitalo de
Mexico Assets
By Jessica Holbrook, Plastics News Staff
Posted October 17, 2012
MONTERREY, MEXICO (4:35 p.m. ET)
P
lastic Ingenuity de Mexico,
an affiliate of Plastic
Ingenuity Inc., has purchased
the assets of thermoformed
packaging producer Vitalo de
Mexico.
The acquisition allows Plastic
Ingenuity to boost capacity and
capabilities, as well as expand
operations – the company will
now operate two plants in
Monterrey, Mexico, along with
Vitalo de Mexico’s facilities in
Guadalupe, Nuevo León.
It also allows the company
to “capitalize on the return
of manufacturing business to
North America from Asia,”
said Tom Kuehn, president of
Plastic Ingenuity, in a news
release.
Vitalo de Mexico is a branch of
Belgium thermoforming giant
the Vitalo Group.
Terms of the deal were not
disclosed.
Plastic Ingenuity de Mexico
was formed in 2006 through a
joint venture between Plastic
Ingenuity and Converforma
of Monterrey. Prior to the
acquisition, the company
operated eight vacuum forming
lines at its Monterrey plant.
Based in Cross Plains,
Wisconsin, Plastic Ingenuity
makes custom thermoformed
packaging for a variety of
markets including food, medical,
electronics and retail. The
company has approximately
500 employees, and operates
11 extrusion lines and 46
thermoforming lines across its
four U.S. locations.
Plastic Ingenuity had sales
of $80 million in 2012 and
was No. 24 in the most recent
Plastics News ranking of North
American thermoformers. x
Faerch
Plast Tests
Recyclable
Black CPET
By Charlotte Eyre, European Plastics News Staff
Posted October 30, 2012
HOLSTEBRO, DENMARK (1:45 p.m. ET)
D
anish thermoformer Faerch
Plast A/S is developing
a type of crystalline PET that
can be detected by infra red
technology in recycling streams,
meaning the material can be
separated from mixed plastics
waste.
“When recycling plastics,
companies have infra red
cameras to identify what the
plastics are,” spokesman Joe
Iannidinardo told European
Plastics News. “But when the
plastic is black light can’t shine
through it, meaning it can’t be
detected by the cameras.”
Faerch Plast has reformulated its
CPET material with a different
pigment arrangement. This
allows some of the infra red
light to reflect back into the
cameras, meaning the material
can be recycled in mixed waste
streams.
The company developed the
material at its R&D center
in Denmark but is currently
testing using the material to
manufacture trays for ready
meals in the UK, which is the
main market for these products.
The firm is now carrying
out tests with stakeholders,
including WRAP and various
supermarkets.
“We’re excited about the project
because it brings the idea of
a closed loop system closer
and closer,” said Iannidinardo,
adding: “The aim is to have the
trays come back to use as flakes,
perhaps even three or four
times.”
Iannidinardo did not go into
detail about how Faerch Plast
plans to manufacture the
material but says the company
aims to make the process “cost
neutral” compared to other
materials on the market. x
2013
EDITORIAL
CALENDAR
Gwen Mathis Named Emeritus Director
Quarterly Deadlines for
Copy and Sponsorships
Emeritus Director status replaces current board member
status and has a term of three years. Emeritus Directors can
be involved in all board activities including conference preparation and
involvement with technical committees. Emeritus Directors continue to receive
quarterly newsletters and all other Board of Director announcements and
emails. They are not required to attend board meetings and do not have voting
responsibilities. Emeritus members are encouraged to be members of the
Society of Plastics Engineers (SPE). Qualified candidates are recommended
through the Membership Committee and brought to the attention of the
Executive Committee for consideration and approval. x
ALL FINAL COPY FOR
EDITORIAL APPROVAL
15-FEB
Spring
31-JUL
Fall
Conference Edition
30-APR
Summer
15-NOV
Winter
Post-Conference Edition
All artwork to be sent in .eps
or .jpg format with minimum
300dpi resolution.
In recognition of her years of dedicated service to the SPE
Thermoforming Division and the industry at large, Gwen
Mathis was named Emeritus Director, Board of Directors,
Thermoforming Division.
Become a
Thermoforming
Quarterly Sponsor
in 2013!
Additional sponsorship
opportunities will include
4-color, full page, and
1/2 page.
RESERVE YOUR PRIME
SPONSORSHIP
SPACE TODAY.
Questions? Call or email
Laura Pichon
Ex-Tech Plastics
847-829-8124
Lpichon@extechplastics.com
BOOK SPACE
IN 2013!
thermoforming
Achieve a sustainable balance of performance and cost.
UPES® resin is NOVA Chemicals’ proprietary additive resin.
When used with polyolefins, this product enables significant source
reduction while increasing performance at no additional cost.
x
YOUR SOLUTION. YOUR UPES® RESIN.
Sustainability
• Up to 20% material source reduction
• More efficient machine usage translates to energy savings
• Recyclable
Benefit
• Improved crush strength - by up to 140%
• 33% faster forming rates
• Better part definition
• Shorter start-ups and reduced scrap rates
Efficiency
• Downgauge
• Easy processability at loadings up to 20% by weight
• Runs on existing equipment
• Blends well with polyolefins
www.upesresin.com
•
upes@novachem.com
•
1.724.770.6610
Thermoformer of the Year 2013
The Awards Committee is now accepting nominations for the 2013 THERMOFORMER OF THE
YEAR. Please help us by identifying worthy candidates. This prestigious honor will be awarded to a
member of our industry who has made a significant contribution to the thermoforming industry in a
technical, educational, or managerial aspect of thermoforming. Nominees will be evaluated and voted
on by the Thermoforming Board of Directors at the Winter 2013 meeting. The deadline for submitting
nominations is January 15th, 2013. Please complete the form below and include all biographical
information. Total submission, including this application page, must not exceed four (4) pages.
Person Nominated: ____________________________________ Title: ___________________
Firm or Institution______________________________________________________________
Street Address: ____________________________ City, State, Zip: ______________________
Telephone: _______________ Fax: _________________ E-mail: ________________________
Biographical Information:
• Nominee’s Experience in the Thermoforming Industry.
• Nominee’s Education (include degrees, year granted, name and location of university)
• Prior corporate or academic affiliations (include company and/or institutions, title, and approximate dates of affiliations)
• Professional society affiliations
• Professional honors and awards.
• Publications and patents (please attach list).
• Evaluation of the effect of this individual’s achievement on technology and progress of
the plastics industry. (To support nomination, attach substantial documentation of these
achievements.)
• Other significant accomplishments in the field of plastics.
Individual Submitting Nomination: _______________________ Title: _____________________
Firm or Institution______________________________________________________________
Address: __________________________________ City, State, Zip: ______________________
Phone: _______________ Fax: _________________ E-mail: ___________________________
Signature: ___________________________________________ Date: ____________________
(ALL NOMINATIONS MUST BE SIGNED)
Please submit all nominations to: Juliet Goff,
Kal Plastics,
2050 East 48th Street, Vernon CA 90058-2022
Phone 323.581.6194, ext. 223 or email at: Juliet@kal-plastics.com
Thermoforming
Quarterly®
The Business of Thermoforming
Understanding Industrial Investment
Decision-Making
By Christopher Russell and Rachel Young,
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
Executive Summary
Editor’s Note: The following excerpts are reprinted with permission from the American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE). We offer this synopsis to our readers
because the report has broad implications for thermoforming OEMs, processors, suppliers
and toolmakers surrounding capital and operational investments. The complete report
includes in-depth survey results from NAICS-coded industrial sectors, including plastics
(326). Please visit www.aceee.org for more details.
After a prolonged recession,
the U.S. economy is poised for
recovery. Economic rebound
implies growth and renewal
to accompany the ongoing
evolution of energy markets,
regulations, and technologies.
And because manufacturing is
by nature a capital-intensive
activity, we anticipate that the
sector’s economic renewal is
partially dependent on capital
investment in new and efficient
technologies. Industrial energy
efficiency opportunities coincide
with economic recovery and the
growth and modernization of
domestic production capacity.
same company. As facilities
continues to capture many of
the low- and no-cost energy
improvement opportunities,
future improvements will be
increasingly linked to industry’s
capital investment activity.
Industrial energy program
administrators will need a
better understanding of capital
investment processes as these
vary throughout industry. By
influencing capital investment
decisions, the next generation of
energy efficiency programs can
influence the profile of industrial
energy use for years to come.
Economic recovery prospects
across the manufacturing
sector are stronger for some
industries than for others. As the
manufacturing sector changes,
so should the nature of energy
efficiency programs. Industry’s
motivation for achieving energy
improvements still lags its true
potential, as the propensity
to adopt energy management
principles remains irregular,
even across facilities of the
Despite a decade of sluggish
economic growth (2000-2009),
output and productivity data from
1998-2009 reveal an industrial
sector with elements of growth,
recuperation, and surprisingly
little retrenchment. Productivity
gains achieved by many
industries during this decade
despite their low growth of
output are evidence of the muscle
needed for an economic rebound,
while capacity utilization
and investment rates point to
opportunities for industrial
expansion.
Introduction
In 2012, the U.S. economy
is poised for recovery from a
prolonged recession. Aiding the
recovery is the trend of re-shoring
of industrial production facilities
from overseas locations (MAPI
2012, BCG 2012). Recovery
will in part reflect capital
investment in new and more
efficient manufacturing facilities
on U.S. soil. At the core of this
activity is capital investment in
industrial assets. Investment in
durable facility and production
assets will shape industrial
energy intensity for years to
come. This is an opportunity to
evolve and intensify industrial
energy efficiency programs to
support the implementation of
efficient technologies. Successful
industrial energy programs
will increasingly depend on
knowledge of industry’s capital
investment decision-making
process. This report examines
industrial capital investment
experience, using macroeconomic
data as well as a survey of
industrial energy users and
related market and program
facilitators.1 The findings suggest
an evolution of energy program
design and conduct.
Trends in manufacturing output
have direct implications for
the national economy on three
broad dimensions. First, while
U.S. manufacturing output is
decreasing as a proportion of
total GDP, the absolute volume
of manufacturing output is still
increasing. This simply means
that manufacturing as a whole
is not growing as quickly as
some other sectors (Pollack
2012). Still, each dollar of
manufacturing output also
generates an additional $1.40
worth of non-manufacturing
services throughout the domestic
economy (NAM 2009). Second,
the industrial sector represents
31 percent of all domestic energy
consumption (EIA 2010). The
sector is therefore an inescapable
component of ongoing energy
policy and program development.
Finally, prospects for the national
economy and its energy resources
are inextricably linked by capital
investment in more efficient
productive assets.
Because energy is a universal
ingredient in all manufacturing,
improved energy technologies
provide potential benefits to
1
all industries, regardless of
their product mix or facility
size. Similarly, the sheer
magnitude of manufacturing
energy consumption makes it an
unavoidable focus for achieving
the state and regional energy
supply balances sought by
regulators of energy distribution
utilities.
At first glance, the growth of
U.S. manufacturing output
during the first decade of the
21st century appeared to be
stagnant. Observers have raised
a variety of concerns about this
performance, debating the need
for a national manufacturing
policy (Romer 2012, Sperling
2012). But in 2012, after a
decade capped off by a prolonged
recession, manufacturers have
an unprecedented opportunity
for contributing to economic
recovery. Several facts point to
this opportunity. First, publicallytraded U.S. corporations are
sitting on a lot of cash. Their
balance sheets have cash balances
of over $2.2 trillion, up from
$1.5 trillion at the end of 2007
(Fortune 2012). The same
decade was characterized by the
off-shoring of some industrial
production capacity combined
with reluctance to reinvest
in domestic capacity due to
economic uncertainty. As noted
in an earlier study, by 2008 the
U.S. manufacturing sector was
not only reaching full capacity,
it was also beginning to reverse
See Acknowledgements, p. iv, for a definition of survey respondent types.
the trend of production offshoring, thanks to the costs and
difficulties of global supply
chains (Elliott et al. 2008).
Additionally, the manufacturing
sector reflects pent-up demand
for new capacity after a decade
of tepid capital investment
(Kaushal et al. 2011). Together,
these facts suggest that
domestic manufacturers have
an opportunity to not only build
new capacity, but to obtain
the competitive edge that
new technology will provide.
Reinvestment in domestic
manufacturing should directly
contribute to U.S. economic
recovery. New macroeconomic
data, not yet available at the
time of this report, may verify
the recovery’s relationship to
capital investment.
Recently, an unprecedented
volume of public and utility
ratepayer funds have been
poured into energy incentive
and assistance programs for
the manufacturing sector
(Chittum and Nowak 2012).
While assistance programs
frequently reveal improvement
opportunities of all kinds and
magnitudes, many facilities
tend to favor solutions that
involve low- and no-cost
improvements to existing
assets. Meanwhile, a sluggish
economic recovery combined
with uncertain future tax and
regulatory consequences have
discouraged many companies
(continued on next page)
from making strategic capital
investment in energy-intensive
systems. In sum, great potential
remains for industrial energy
improvement. However, various
industries experience cycles of
capital infrastructure renewal
over intervals of five, ten, or
more years (Elliott et al. 2008).
This means that recently-gained
awareness of potential energy
improvements should lead to
implementation of efficiency
measures throughout the coming
decade.
Various manufacturing
corporations respond differently
to energy program incentives.
Each company demonstrates
a unique combination of
motivations and investment
decision-making processes.
This is an ongoing challenge
for energy efficiency program
administrators. To improve
their future effectiveness,
program administrators will
need a better understanding of
the industrial sector’s prospects
for investment, as well as the
nature of the corporate decision
process. While previous studies
of industrial output and energy
consumption typically examine
energy intensity (e.g., Kolwey
2005), there is a need to study
capital investment dynamics
as these may shape the design
and conduct of future energy
efficiency programs.
Competing
Considerations
Broadly speaking, industrial
asset management is a trade-off
between two choices: squeezing
incremental value from existing
facilities and equipment – doing
things right – versus updating
facilities to obtain a strategic
competitive advantage – doing
the right thing. The trade-off
reflects management strategy, and
has direct implications for capital
investment. By choosing to do
things right, a company implicitly
commits to refining its current
products, markets, and processes.
By contrast, a company wishing
to do the right thing is thinking
beyond today in anticipation of
tomorrow’s opportunities for
innovation, relocation, expansion,
and growth. This choice
determines whether business
returns are maximized for the
short run or for the long term.
These strategy differences explain
why two manufacturing facilities,
similar in every physical aspect,
can demonstrate vastly different
appetites for investment in energy
efficiency.
At least seven respondents
indicate that business growth
is the primary goal of capital
investment. Aside from
meeting business growth
needs, many manufacturers
are compelled by statutory
safety and environmental
compliance needs to invest
in existing facilities. Add to
this the capital requirements
to simply repair and maintain
current facilities. According
to most respondents, energy
improvement proposals compete
with (rather than contribute
to) these primary investment
goals. While “efficiency” is
not entirely dismissed, it is
usually a secondary priority. One
respondent states that the primary
goal for energy management is
to ensure that energy supplies are
distributed adequately throughout
a facility in a timely fashion – a
task that is sometimes at odds
with efficiency rather than
because of it.
Unless it is to replace a failed
asset, an energy efficiency
improvement is more difficult
to justify than a growthoriented investment. At least
five respondents indicate that
energy improvements are
more easily addressed in new
construction than in the retrofit
of existing facilities. About
half the respondents indicate
that capital allocations favor
proposals that promise growth,
address mandatory safety or
environmental compliance,
or both. A similar number of
respondents (not always the
same counted for the last point)
say that energy impacts are at
least one of many factors to be
considered when evaluating
a capital investment. Six
respondents (four of them large
companies) indicate that energy
improvements compete with all
other capital funding requests.
However, three respondents (all
were large companies) indicate
that their organization maintains
a capital budget track for energy
separate from all other investment
purposes. A dedicated energy
fund ensures that at least some
capital is available each year
for energy improvements. Of
note is the claim by at least five
respondents that energy projects
are often the kind of items paid
for from either non-capital funds
or from any budget remainders
at the end of the fiscal year. To
the extent that this is true, it
suggests that industrial energy
improvements happen more by
chance than by deliberate effort.
It is not accurate to conclude that
energy improvements always
“compete” with all other capital
investment opportunities. As
one large company respondent
points out, energy improvements
are sometimes the consequence
of modernization or automation
efforts. Documenting these
impacts will help when
assembling justifications for
future improvements.
Impacts of Energy
Improvements
Despite the many difficulties,
many energy managers can
and do overcome barriers. Two
SME respondents note that
their organizations originally
avoided energy improvements
in favor of other investments.
But once some initial energy
project results were available,
managers were convinced and
wanted more! Four respondents
reiterate that project success is
often predicated on non-energy
benefits. Specifically: 90 percent
of energy projects also have a
productivity impact (one large
company, one facilitator); energy
improvements provide a four-fold
return in the form of production
improvements (one large
company); and two other large
companies claim that non-energy
benefits “dominate” the returns
from energy projects. There’s still
room for improvement: at least
one large company respondent
says the company experiences an
implementation success rate for
energy proposals of 30 percent
or less. A facilitator claims an 80
percent implementation rate.
At least one respondent notes that
energy improvements are harder
to justify with today’s relatively
low gas prices. Upon reflection,
this may reveal a strategic
opportunity. As discussed in Part
1 of this report, the industrial
sector is experiencing a reshoring of production facilities
on domestic soil. This is due in
part to lower gas prices. But does
this not underscore the need to
invest in new facilities? If so,
this investment is an opportunity
to implement advanced, energysaving technologies that will
hedge these new facilities against
future energy price increases.
Conclusions for
Future Program
Design and Conduct
The U.S. manufacturing sector
reveals varying readiness for
economic recovery after a
decade of capacity destruction
and overall stagnant growth.
Segmentation of the sector
per trends in output and
productivity reveal that most
of the manufacturing sector (94
percent of value produced) in
fact increased its productivity
between 1998 and 2009.
Considering also the sector’s
potential for increased capital
investment in modernized
facilities, the muscle for
economic recovery seems to
be in place. The industrial
segmentation described in this
report suggests where future
energy program outreach should
be focused.
Overall
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Opportunities for manufacturing
sector expansion are emerging
after a decade of economic
turmoil. With this expansion
comes the opportunity
to modernize industrial
infrastructure, which can
have direct, positive impacts
for energy efficiency as well
as industry competitiveness
and overall economic growth.
Manufacturing assets are
employed for years or even
decades at a time. Should
companies fail to implement
efficient technologies from the
onset of facility construction,
the cost liabilities will be longlasting. x
Thermoforming
Quarterly®
ANTEC Paper
TT H
Q
LL PP O
CC P)
H EE R
RM
MO
O FF O
OR
RM
M AA BB LL EE LL IILiquid
QU
U II D
D CC R
R YST
YST AACrystal
O LL YY M
M EE R
R (L
(LPolymer
P)
Thermoformable
Bing
Bing Lu,
Lu, Achi
Achim
m Hof
Hofm
mann,
ann, Paul
Paul Yung
Yung
(LCP)
Ticona
Ticona Engineering
Engineering Poly
Polym
mers,
ers, FFlorence,
lorence, KY
KY
By Bing Lu, Achim Hofmann, Paul Yung, Ticona Engineering Polymers, Florence, Kentucky
A bstract
M aterials
A bstract
Abstract
Thermoforming is an economical process for forming
Thermoforming is an economical process for forming
large shape products. High performance liquid crystal
large shape products. High performance liquid crystal
polymer (LCP) has high thermal stability, excellent
polymer (LCP) has high thermal stability, excellent
dimensional stability and high chemical resistance, which
dimensional stability and high chemical resistance, which
offers new application opportunities in demanding
offers new application opportunities in demanding
applications. In this paper, a new thermoformable LCP
applications. In this paper, a new thermoformable LCP
resin is compared with injection molding LCP on
resin is compared with injection molding LCP on
mechanical, thermal and rheological properties. Sheet
mechanical, thermal and rheological properties. Sheet
extrusion and thermoforming process conditions are
extrusion and thermoforming process conditions are
discussed.
discussed.
M aterials
Materials
541 LCP resin
Thermoformable Vectra®® T.rex0
Thermoformable Vectra T.rex0 541 LCP resin
manufactured by Ticona Engineering Polymers is a high
manufactured by Ticona Engineering Polymers is a high
melt viscosity LCP resin with >30wt% mineral fillers. The
melt viscosity LCP resin with >30wt% mineral fillers. The
resin was converted into sheets on a laboratory scale using
resin was converted into sheets on a laboratory scale using
)*$(" "#)*-*(+) %$" $, *
2/##
)*$(" "#)*-*(+) %$" $, *
2/##
die and commercially on )* -*(+) %$ " $ , * 2
die and commercially on )* -*(+) %$ " $ , * 2
(~457mm) die. LCP sheets were tested for
(~457mm) die. LCP sheets were tested for
thermoformability using a lab Technoform®® tester and
thermoformability using a lab Technoform tester and
also formed into parts on a commercial thermoforming
also formed into parts on a commercial thermoforming
line.
line.
Results
and
Discussion
Resultsand
and Discussion
Discussion
Results
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Thermoforming is a method widely used for
Thermoforming is a method widely used for
processing of polymers into desired shapes from extruded
processing of polymers into desired shapes from extruded
sheets. It is a process typically suited for low volume large
sheets. It is a process typically suited for low volume large
parts where injection molding is non-ideal due to its high
parts where injection molding is non-ideal due to its high
fixed costs. Liquid crystal polymer (LCP) is a high
fixed costs. Liquid crystal polymer (LCP) is a high
performance polymer with high thermal stability, high heat
performance polymer with high thermal stability, high heat
defection temperatures (HDT), excellent chemical
defection temperatures (HDT), excellent
chemical
Ticona has
resistance and high dimensional stability. [1-4]
resistance and high dimensional stability. [1-4] Ticona has
introduced the first commercially available extrudable and
introduced the first commercially available extrudable and
541. This
thermoformable LCP resin Vectra®® T.rex0
thermoformable LCP resin Vectra T.rex0 541. This
novel LCP resin formulation permits the fabrication of
novel LCP resin formulation permits the fabrication of
extrusion sheets with high thermal stability for
extrusion sheets with high thermal stability for
thermoforming parts in applications such as industrial
thermoforming parts in applications such as industrial
baking trays and high performance heat shields. For
baking trays and high performance heat shields. For
example, in industrial baking trays, LCP provides values
example, in industrial baking trays, LCP provides values
of energy saving and maintenance cost reduction
of energy saving and maintenance cost reduction
compared to traditional PTFE-coated steel trays or
compared to traditional PTFE-coated steel trays or
stainless steel trays because of its fast heating, lightweight
stainless steel trays because of its fast heating, lightweight
and long operating life. LCP properties also inherently add
and long operating life. LCP properties also inherently add
non-stick and microwave-ability to these applications.
non-stick and microwave-ability to these applications.
Unlike most semi-crystalline resins, the rigid, rod-like
Unlike most semi-crystalline resins, the rigid, rod-like
molecular structure of LCP resins imparts a unique melt
molecular structure of LCP resins imparts a unique melt
behavior (nematic transition). This property requires
behavior (nematic transition). This property requires
special resin selection and processing consideration to
special resin selection and processing consideration to
meet the requirements in both sheet extrusion and in the
meet the requirements in both sheet extrusion and in the
thermoforming process. In this paper, we review the
thermoforming process.
In this paper, we review the
0
thermoformable LCP, and its
properties of T.rex
properties of T.rex0 thermoformable LCP, and its
processing conditions for sheet extrusion and
processing conditions for sheet extrusion and
thermoforming. Thermformability is also discussed.
thermoforming. Thermformability is also discussed.
Property
Property
Overview
Property O
Overview
verview
Table 1 lists an overall comparison of T.rex0
Table 1 lists an overall comparison of T.rex0
thermoformable LCP resin and an injection molding LCP
thermoformable LCP resin and an injection molding LCP
resin on mechanical, thermal, physical and rheological
resin on mechanical, thermal, physical and rheological
properties. Both resins are based on the same polymer
properties. Both resins are based on the same polymer
composition and filler package.
composition and filler package.
T able 1. Comparison of Properties of Injection
T able 1. Comparison of Properties of Injection
M olding L C P and T hermoformable L C P
M olding L C P andInjection
T hermoformable
L CP
Properties
Molding LCP Thermoformable LCP
Properties
Physical
Physical 3
Density (g/cm 3)
Density (g/cm )
-1
Melt Viscosity at 400 s -1 (Pa.s)
Melt Viscosity at 400 s -1(Pa.s)
Melt Viscosity at 1000 s -1 (Pa.s)
Melt Viscosity at 1000 s (Pa.s)
Mechanical
Mechanical
Tensile Modulus (G Pa)
Tensile Modulus (G Pa)
Tensile Strength (M Pa)
Break Strain (%)
Break Strain (%)
Flexural Modulus (G Pa)
Flexural Modulus (G Pa)
Flexural Strength (M Pa)
Flexural Strength (M Pa) 2
Notched Izod Impact (KJ/m 2)
Notched Izod Impact (KJ/m )
Thermal
Thermal
o
Melting Point ( oC)
Melting Point ( C) o
DTUL @1.8 M Pa ( oC)
DTUL @1.8 M Pa ( C)
Injection Molding LCP
Thermoformable LCP
1.74
1.74
56
56
37
37
1.74
1.74
180
180
114
114
8.5
8.5
96
96
2.7
2.7
9.1
9.1
119
119
5
5
10.8
10.8
118
118
3.6
3.6
11.6
11.6
128
128
7.4
7.4
357
357
240
240
357
357
245
245
As indicated from melt viscosity, thermoformable
As indicated from melt viscosity, thermoformable
LCP (TF-LCP) has much higher molecular weight than
LCP (TF-LCP) has much higher molecular weight than
injection molding LCP (IM-LCP), which enhances HDT
injection molding LCP (IM-LCP), which enhances HDT
and mechanical properties, including modulus, strength,
and mechanical properties, including modulus, strength,
elongation and impact strength of TF-LCP.
elongation and impact strength of TF-LCP.
Figure 1compares the capillary melt viscosity of TFFigure 1compares the capillary melt viscosity of TFLCP and IM-LCP. The much higher melt shear viscosity
LCP and IM-LCP. The much higher melt shear viscosity
of TF-LCP improves its melt strength, a key property for
extrusion
and
thermoforming.
The
slope
of
viscosity/shear-rate of both LCP types are very similar,
indicating similar shear thinning behavior contributed
from similar molecular structure rigid rods. The slope is
higher than that of typical semi-crystalline polymers.
Additional studies were conducted on both resins with
a dynamic rotational rheometer. Figure 2 compares
complex melt viscosity of both LCPs with frequency
sweep at 360o C. It clearly shows much higher zero melt
viscosity of TF-LCP compared with IM-LCP. There is no
significant viscosity plateau near zero to low shear rate
region as normally observed in typical semi-crystalline
polymers. This phenomenon is attributed to both the LCP
rigid rod molecular structure and the filler effect.
was observed around 290-300o C, which can be
%$) ()$5*($) * %$
To further demonstrate the target forming
temperature, dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) was
performed from -50o C to 300o C. As shown in Figure 4, at
280o C there is a peak of loss modulus, which reflects the
5-transition observed in DSC. Both storage and loss
modulus decreased rapidly around 300o C, which can be
used as an initial target forming temperature. This
property is common between IM-LCP and TF-LCP
grades.
F igure 3. DSC of thermoformable L C P
F igure 1. C apillary M elt V iscosity at 370o C
Capillary Melt Viscosity at 370oC
1000
Apparent Melt Viscosity (Pa.s)
Thermoformable LCP
Injection Molding LCP
100
F igure 4. D M A curves of injection molding L C P (A)
and thermoformable L C P (B)
10
50
500
5000
Shear Rate (1/s)
A
o
F igure 2. Dynamic M elt V iscosity at 360 C
>/92#,.(=?&26(+,-."-,*/(2*(@AB"!
!""""""
#$%&'()(&'*+,%-./0
123%456(2-7(,8629-./0
!"#$%&'()&%*(+,-."-,*/(0123-4
!"""""
!""""
!"""
B
!""
!"
"
!
56&78&9./(0:2;<=&.4
!"
!""
The DSC thermogram (Figure 3) of TF-LCP shows a
small high temperature transition (melting), which peaks
at 357o C and has 6 %+* J/g. No other peak was
observed. A change in the slope of the heat capacity curve
Sheet
Sheet Extrusion
E xtrusion
The quality of extrusion sheets is a key factor for
thermoforming process and final part quality. A lab
film/sheet extrusion line was first used to make a 50-80
micron film to identify process conditions.
)*+& % 2 (~100mm) "# " $ ) 2
(~38mm) single screw extruder, L/D=20; coat-hanger die,
up to 100mmX100micron opening; no-rip roller, twin
stacked 100mm diameterX152mm width polished chrome
roller to a varied speed powered take-up roller. The roller
temperature was set to 120o C for good surface film
quality. The LCP resins were dried at 150o C for 6 hours
before extrusion. It is important to note that the drying
process is critical. Residual moisture has been observed to
lead to polymer degradation and blister formation on the
sheet surface.
Table 2 lists the processing conditions and
observations of film extrusion of TF-LCP and IM-LCP.
This analysis demonstrated conclusively that TF-LCP
produced films with significantly higher quality than IMLCP. It is believed that the high melt strength is the
necessary feature for film/sheet extrusion. From Table 2,
the optimal extrusion melt temperature range was
determined to be between 345-360o C. (This relatively
narrow processing temperature range of LCP compared to
traditional semi-crystalline resins is due predominantly to
its narrow nematic melt transition behavior.)
T able 2. F ilm extrusion result comparison
Resin
Injection Molding
LCP
Thermoformable
LCP
Roller Speed Melt Temp Die Temp
Test No. (inch/sec)
( C)
o
( C)
o
1
1.3
330
332
2
1.35
342
340
3
0.95
331
335
4
0.95
327
330
Observation
Holes in film, difficult to roll,
uneven width
Few holes, still difficult to roll,
unven width
Few holes, still difficult to roll,
unven width
Mlet freezing in the die, few
holes, cracking on edge
1
1.3
347
345
Very smooth surface, no flow
mark/gel/holes
345
Increased width, very smooth
surface, nogel/holes, very few
flow marks
Increased width, very smooth
surface, nogel/holes, very few
flow marks
2
1.3
347
3
1.45
357
355
4
1.45
370
365
5
1.5
375
375
Surface became rough, edge
starting to crack
Rough surface, edge
cracking
To translate this technology to a commercial scale,
TF-LCP was extruded into sheets on a commercial sheet
extrusion line with an 2 (~457mm) die at melt
temperature around 355o C and roller temperatures around
120o C. The sheets had the thickness about 0.80-0.90 mm.
The sheets had excellent surface quality with no
hole/gel/flow mark.
Tensile-bar samples were cut from the sheets, and
tensile properties were measured. Table 3 shows the
tensile properties of the sheet in flow and transverse
direction.
T able 3. Tensile Properties of T F-L C P Sheets
Property
Flow
Transeverse
Modulus (G Pa)
11.2
5.8
84
42
Break Strain (%)
1.3
1.8
As shown in Table 3, the TF-LCP sheets exhibited
anisotropic mechanical properties. On flow direction, the
rig rod-like molecules aligned together to enhance
modulus and strength. In the sheet extrusion, it is
preferable not to stretch the sheet much so that the sheet
can have reduced anisotropic effect. Furthermore, in
thermoforming part design, anisotropic factor needs to be
considered to provide the best mechanical strength
requirement. Figure 5 shows a typical LCP rod structure
and skin-core layer structure scheme.
F igure 5. L C P rod and skin-core layer structure
scheme
Thermoforming
T hermoforming Test
Thermoforming ability was tested on TF-LCP sheets
%* $ (%# 2 (~457mm) extrusion sheet line using
Technoform® Tester by Transmit Technology Group.
127mmX127mm samples cut from extrusion sheets
were held firmly between two aluminum plates (sample
tray) having 57mm diameter opening. A 32mm diameter
100mm long polished aluminum plug tool was used for
forming. Plug was heated to 150o C. Samples were heated
by two independently controlled and movable ceramic IR
heaters. The top heater position was varied from 38 to
76mm and bottom heater was kept at 76mm from the
sample surface. Both heaters were maintained at 830oC.
After samples reached the set temperatures, they were
moved to be formed with the plug. Test temperatures were
varied. Figure 5 shows the plug and sample tray, and
Figure 6 shows the Technoform® tester.
thermoformable LCP sheet samples with set temperatures.
Below 330o )#&" $3t show any sag. There was a
rapid increase of sag distance around 340oC, and then a
plateau around 350-370oC, and then a sharp increase
above 380oC. Sag was uniform in these temperature
ranges, and the )*) $3* )%, +"! "%, %( "+(
indicating adequate melt strength of TF-LCP resin. Figure
9 shows a sag sample and a formed sample.
F igure 9. Pictures of a sag sample (at 400o C)
and a formed sample (350o C/plug speed
60mm/sec)
F igure 6. T est Plug and Sample T ray
Formed
sample
Table 4 lists the thermoformability test conditions.
Plug speed and set temperature were mainly investigated
for forming. From all tests, we saw rapid temperature drop
from set temperature to form beginning temperature and
form ending temperature. To retain heat is very important
for thermoforming because the loss of heat or rapid
cooling can result polymer loose melt elasticity. LCP has
very small heat fusion of nematic transition, so it solidifies
quickly, and to maintain sample hot during forming by
certain ways is essential. Increasing plug speed means
short time to form to specific distance, and shorter time
means less heat loss and smaller delta T drop.
F igure 7. Technoform® Tester
T able 4. Forming Test Conditions and Results
F igure 8. Sag distances vs. Set Temperatures
1
0.83
2
0.83
3
0.83
4
0.83
Plug speed (mm/sec)
60
60
100
120
Plug dwell time (sec)
=2C(>,-*29.&(0##4(D-3(E&#$&62*86&(0"!4
T (set) (oC)
!"
o
T (form beginning) ( C)
>
T (form ending) (oC)
T(set)-T(form
=
beginning) (oC)
<
30
30
30
30
350
400
350
380
313
358
315
340
307
344
312
338
37
42
35
40
6
Good uniform
shape, no hole
14
Uniform, some
holes around neck
3
Good uniform
shape, no hole
2
Good uniform
shape, no hole
T(form beginning)-
T(form ending) (oC)
;
"
:;
Test Run No.
Thickness (mm)
?""
?;"
?<"
?="
?>"
<""
The sag resistance is an indication of melt strength.
The sheet samples were heated to 300, 330, 350, 385 and
400oC. Figure 8 shows the sag distances of
Forming Observation
Thermoformability of materials depends on melt
strength (similar to hot modulus in tensile test) as well as
melt elasticity (similar to strain break in tensile test) at
forming temperatures. Materials with high melt strength
but low melt elasticity cannot be formed to deep drawn
parts. Materials with good melt elasticity but decreasing
ness
melt
int.
y to
$
mers
han
hich
dly
were
were
ver-
heat but a "%* ")) 1* #2 *% %%" (%# #"* *$
amorphous materials. Generally, amorphous polymers
have a wider forming process temperature range than
crystalline polymers. LCP has small heat transition, which
means it is heated fast in heating stage and cooled rapidly
melt
be formed but will exhibit thickness
duringstrength
formingcan
stage.
variation and wall thinning. Crystalline materials lose melt
strength
meltinelasticity
above
peak melting
As and
shown
Table 4,
goodtheir
uniform
shapes point.
were
Crystalline
materials
also4.require
a lot
energy
to
formed in Run
1, 3 and
For Run
2, higher
some holes
were
heat
butaround
a "%*thin
"))neck,
1* #2
*% indicated
%%" (%#
*$
formed
which
that#"*
an overamorphous
Generally,
polymers
drawing ratiomaterials.
caused breakages.
Thisamorphous
breakage may
relate
have
a
wider
forming
process
temperature
range
than
to two factors: one is fast decrease of form temperature,
crystalline
polymers.
LCP
has
small
heat
transition,
which
another is strain hardening. Overall, forming temperatures
o
means
is heated
stage and
cooled rapidly
Cfast
offerinaheating
good forming
window.
aroundit320-340
during forming stage.
To further verify the melt elasticity, vacuum forming
As ashown
in pre-heated
Table 4, samples
good uniform
shapes
were
without
plug on
was tested.
Vacuum
formed
1, 3 and
For Run Figure
2, some10holes
werea
forming inisRun
a very
rapid4. process.
shows
formed
neck,
which
indicated
that an in
overvacuum around
formed thin
sample.
It has
good,
even thickness
the
drawing
This which
breakage
may relate
bulb andratio
therecaused
is no breakages.
hole/breakage,
indicates
that
to
factors:
is fastmelt
decrease
of form temperature,
thetwo
TF-LCP
hasone
excellent
elasticity.
another is strain hardening. Overall, forming temperatures
o
C offer
good forming
window.
around 320-340
F igure
10. Va acuum
forming
sample
To further verify the melt elasticity, vacuum forming
without a plug on pre-heated samples was tested. Vacuum
forming is a very rapid process. Figure 10 shows a
vacuum formed sample. It has good, even thickness in the
bulb and there is no hole/breakage, which indicates that
the TF-LCP has excellent melt elasticity.
F igure 10. V acuum forming sample
Thermoformable LCP sheets were also formed at
commercial thermoforming units. Figure 11 shows an
example of a heart shape tray, and Figure 12 shows an
example of a baking tray.
F igure 11. C hocolate heart shape form tray by
thermoformable L C P
Thermoformable LCP sheets were also formed at
commercial thermoforming units. Figure 11 shows an
example of a heart shape tray, and Figure 12 shows an
example of a baking tray.
F igure 11. C hocolate heart shape form tray by
thermoformable L C P
30 mm
Conclusions
Conclusions
Thermoformable LCP shows very high melt viscosity
and high heat deflection temperature. It can be extruded
into sheets for thermoforming. Due to its unique melt
transition, compared with semi-crystalline or amorphous
polymers, thermoformable LCP resin needs30special
mm
forming good parts. For TF-LCP discussed in this paper,
Conclusions
the sheet extrusion melt
temperature is about 345-360oC
and the forming temperature range is about 320-340oC.
LCP
shows
veryand
highelasticity
melt viscosity
The Thermoformable
TF-LCP has good
melt
strength
based
and
high heat deflection
temperature.
can be
extruded
on thermoformability
tests.
Due to itsItrapid
heating
and
into
sheets
for thermoforming.
Due for
to its
melt
cooling
characteristics,
special means
heatunique
retention
is
transition,
compared
with Vacuum
semi-crystalline
needed during
forming.
formingorisamorphous
preferred
polymers,
thermoformable
LCPminimum
resin needs
special
because of fast
forming cycle and
heat loss.
x
forming good parts. For
TF-LCP discussed in this paper,
References
References
the sheet extrusion melt temperature is about 345-360oC
o
C.
and
the forming
range is about
1. +$temperature
* 1(#%*(%&
'+320-340
(.)*"
The %".#()2())01)
TF-LCP has good melt strength and elasticity based
on
tests.
Due to its
rapid%$2
heating
and
2. thermoformability
( ) +,$"
1%".#(
-*(+)
th Ed.,
cooling
characteristics,
special
means
for
heat
retention
is
needed
during
forming.
Vacuum
forming
is
preferred
3. #) (%$ 1$%"%. % (#%%(# $2
because
of fast
forming
cycle and minimum heat loss.
Hanser
Verlag
(1996)
4.
1.
M. Mogilevsky, Polymer Engineering and Science,
References
Vol. 38, 322-329 (1998)
+$ * 1(#%*(%& '+ (.)*"
%".#()2())01)
th
2. ( ) +,$"
Key1%".#(
Words -*(+) %$2 Ed.,
ANTEC,
thermoforming,
sheet, extrusion,
process,$2
3. #)
(%$ 1$%"%.
% (#%%(#
liquidHanser
crystal
polymer
(LCP), thermoformability,
Verlag
(1996)
4. M. Mogilevsky, Polymer Engineering and Science,
performance
Vol. 38, 322-329 (1998)
Thermoforming
Quarterly®
Industry Practice
SPE Thermoforming Division’s
21st Annual Conference Report
By Lesley Kyle, OpenMindWorks, Inc.
T
he Thermoforming Division hosted its
21st Annual Conference in Grand Rapids,
Michigan, September 23-25. Over 730 industry
professionals representing 16 countries attended
the Conference to learn about trends and new
developments in technology, machinery and
materials. The City of Grand Rapids rolled out the
red carpet for the Thermoforming Division and
Conference attendees who had the opportunity to
partake in Art Prize – a huge, citywide indoor and
outdoor art exhibition – when they weren’t busy
attending sessions or walking the show floor.
Conference attendees had their choice of two fullday workshops, led by McConnell & Company
and Mark Strachan. The workshops, attended
by nearly 200 industry professionals, addressed
fundamental principles and troubleshooting for
both roll fed and sheet fed thermoforming. At
the conclusion of the Conference, more than 150
attendees participated in the plant tours hosted by
Allen Extruders, Formed Solutions, and FabriKal.
Approximately 85 companies exhibited at the
Conference with over 10 new exhibiting companies
in attendance. Nearly 30 presentations on technical
and business-related topics were delivered during
two days of conference sessions. Wim DeVos,
CEO of the Society of Plastics Engineers,
delivered a keynote presentation on plastics in
the OEM industries. Todd Shepherd, President of
Shepherd Thermoforming, headlined the second
day of sessions with his keynote presentation,
“Re-Shoring to North America.”
One of the highlights of the Conference was the
Thermoformer of the Year and Parts Competition
Awards Dinner. Randy Blin of Blin Management
Company was honored as the 2012 Thermoformer
of the Year. Mr. Blin, a part of the second father-son
winning duo in the history of the award, accepted
hearty applause in front of his family, friends, prior
winners and several hundred conference attendees.
A variety of awards in different categories were also
presented to winners of the Parts Competition. See
pagse 28-29 for full details on and photos of the
Parts Competition winners. A special presentation
highlighting the professional accomplishments
of Gwen Mathis, Conference Coordinator, was
delivered by Jim Armor of the Thermoforming
Division Board of Directors. Ms. Mathis is retiring
from her position as Conference Coordinator at the
end of this year.
Planning is already underway for the SPE 2013
Thermoforming Conference®! Please join us
in Atlanta, Georgia, for the 22nd Annual SPE
Thermoforming Conference: September 9-12.
The conference dates will shift from the weekend
to a weekday pattern in 2013. For the most upto-date information, visit the website at www.
thermoformingdivision.com or contact Lesley Kyle
at thermoformingdivision@gmail.com. x
Thermoforming
Quarterly®
Industry Practice
Thermoforming Continues to
Create Job Opportunities
By Zach Ernest, KLA Industries, Inc.
T
hermoforming continues to be a job-creating
segment of the plastics industry. In thickgauge forming, this can be attributed to increasing
applications in the rebounding auto industry
and to major manufacturers who are re-shoring
their thermoforming operations. In thin-gauge
thermoforming, the growth and increased competition
in the food and medical packaging markets are driving
material and product innovation.
Increased competition and rising material prices
continue to constrict margins for plastic thermoformers.
As a result, companies are looking for areas that they
can control in order to maintain and, where possible,
increase profitability. Many organizations have
focused their efforts on process improvement with
formal training in LEAN manufacturing principles in
order to reduce scrap and maximize production rates.
One of the primary metrics that thermoformers are
targeting for improvement is their Overall Equipment
Effectiveness (OEE). To ensure profitability in what
can be a high volume, low margin industry, one must
minimize downtime for extrusion and thermoforming
lines.
The implementation and execution of a strong
Preventative Maintenance Program is paramount for
sustained performance, especially in order to optimize
equipment efficiency and increase the life of expensive
assets and machinery. This need for an organized
maintenance system is creating opportunities for
engineers with strong preventative and predictive
maintenance and Reliability backgrounds.
Steady M&A activity in the industry has caused some
headcount reduction due to synergies created when
companies merge. However, the competition for top
talent remains fierce due to demographic changes in
the industry and the first wave of retirement for the
baby boomer generation. In fact, last year the oldest
members of this generation turned 65. Every day for
the next 19 years, about 10,000 more will cross that
threshold. Companies need to plan for this shift and
ensure that they are prepared for the replacement of
retiring employees as they will be losing their most
experienced people.
To attract top talent, companies must position
themselves as innovators who are capable of
fostering the career of potential candidates,
whether they are hiring new college graduates or
trying to lure away engineers or technicians from
competitors. Employers are combing resumes for
skills including, SPC, Lean, Six Sigma and TPM.
Candidates need to make sure that they have both
formal training and a wide breadth of skills in order
to differentiate themselves.
The future is bright for this growing industry and
schools like Mid Michigan Community College
and Penn College are taking notice by adding
thermoforming programs to their curriculum.
Whether you are a degreed engineer or a highly
skilled maintenance or production worker, one
thing is certain: opportunities to advance yourself
professionally are all around you. x
Zach Ernest, CPC is VP of Thermoforming for
KLA Industries, Inc., an Executive Search Firm
specializing in the Polymer and Plastics Industry.
www.klaindustries.com zach@klaindustries.com
Meet the Two Fastest in the World.
Peregrine
Falcon
202 MPH
Maximize your solution with
our Servos and Motion Controls.
MT Works2 Motion Software
Single-Axis
Stand-Alone
Motors up to
6000 RPM
MR-J3 Servo
2100 Hz
Speed
Frequency
Response
Time
Blazing fast response time means one thing: maximum
throughput. This is paramount to achieving the lowest
total of cost ownership (TCO) with your investment.
But there’s much more. An auto-tuning function saving
hours of set-up and tuning time. A patented design for
the most compact and efficient motors in the industry.
Bus speeds of 50 Mbps when you combine our servos
and motion products. And the widest range of motors
available from 50 watt up to 220 kW. All this adds up
to why Mitsubishi is ranked #1 in the servo and motion
business worldwide. Get with the best to be the best
and watch your competitors take a swan dive.
Multi-Axis for iQ Series
www.meau.com
Control Your Destiny
B R O W N I S I N N O VATI O N
Control over product.
What gives the Quad greater control over your finished product?
Combining high-tonnage stamping (coining) force with high-tonnage
holding force, and without platen deflection. This powerful combination
produces consistent material distribution, ensuring better part
consistency at higher speeds. It all adds up to producing quality parts
faster, with less scrap.
The Brown Quad Series high-tonnage
power and user-friendly operation
provides process engineers greater
control over the thermoforming
process and their finished products
more than ever before.
Global Leader in Thermoforming Solutions
Control over process
All machine control functions and
diagnostics are easily managed at the HMI
level. An Allen-Bradley open and integrated
architecture control system with user-friendly
HMI and Logix 5000 single program solution.
This solution optimizes and synchronizes the
functions of logic, motion, and oven control.
The system is fully supported worldwide by
both Brown and Allen Bradley.
Find out more at:
www.brown-machine.com
or call 989.435.7741
2012 Conference - Grand Rapids, MI
Photos courtesy of Dallager Photography
From the Editor
I
f you are an educator, student or advisor in a college or university
with a plastics program, we want to hear from you! The SPE
Thermoforming Division has a long and rich tradition of working
with academic partners. From scholarships and grants to workforce
development programs, the division seeks to promote a stronger
bond between industry and academia.
Thermoforming Quarterly is proud to publish news and stories
related to the science and business of thermoforming:
ISO 9001:2000
• New materials development
Juliet Oehler Goff, President/CEO, Kal Plastics
• New applications
• Innovative technologies
• Industry partnerships
• New or expanding laboratory facilities
• Endowments
We are also interested in hearing from our members and colleagues
around the world. If your school or institution has an international
partner, please invite them to submit relevant content. We publish
press releases, student essays, photos and technical papers. If you
would like to arrange an interview, please contact Brian Winton,
Academic Programs, at:
bwinton@lyleindustries.com or 989.435.7718, ext. 32
REDUCE! REUSE!
RECYCLE!
REDUCE! REUSE!
RECYCLE!
University News
UW Stout Students Visit
Wisconsin Manufacturers
By John Shultz, Assistant Professor & Engineering Technology Program Director
O
n October 26th, sixteen UW Stout students
and two Engineering and Technology
Department instructors toured Portage Casting
and Mold, Inc. in Portage and Flambeau
Corporation in Baraboo, WI. The students are
enrolled in MFGT 342, Thermoforming and
Blowmolding Technology, taught by John R.
Schultz. They are BS Engineering Technology
or BS Packaging students with a Plastics
Concentration. Professor Wendy Stary, Plastics
Engineering instructor, also attended.
It was a long, two-and-a-half-hour drive from
Menomonie to Portage, yet well worth it
according to the students. When they returned
to class the following week, the students were
asked to submit comments about what they
learned. The paragraphs below summarize their
responses.
Students had a great experience on the Portage
Casting and Molding tour and came away with a
greater appreciation of the entire manufacturing
process. All found it very interesting to learn
about the different ways the molds are made and
how the sand was used with a chemical binder
for all casting molds. Being able to watch the
entire process from prepping the sand to the
finished tool was very eye-opening. The most
impressive part of the tour was seeing all of the
advanced machinery and the sizes of molds and
CNC machines.
The Flambeau tour was also very enlightening
and students enjoyed every part it, from the
blow molding to injection molding. The students
thought it was awesome to see all the different
types of products that were being made, and how
they compared to products being made by other
processes. Most of the blow molding molds are
produced in-house. With injection molding, the
students found it interesting to see the different
sizes of the machines and the various parts that
they could produce. It was very exciting to see
advanced machinery making complex parts and all
the various jigs and fixtures used. Every student
mentioned how impressive it was to see how the
bullets for the military were produced and wanted
to learn a little more about this process. x
Foundry pouring at PCM
Flambeau Corp., Baraboo, WI
In Memoriam
William Harold “Bill” Benjamin
Our mission is to facilitate the
advancement of thermoforming
technologies through education,
application, promotion and
research.
SPE National
Executive Director
Willem de Vos
13 Church Hill Road
Newtown, CT 06470 USA
Phone: +1 203-775-0471
Fax: +1 203-775-8490
Conference Coordinator
Lesley Kyle
56 Glenvue Drive
Carmel, NY 10512
914/671-9524
email: lesley@openmindworks.com
Visit Our Website at:
www.
thermoformingdivision.
com
William Harold “Bill” Benjamin, 73, of Bellflower, CA,
passed away on October 27, 2012 in Bellflower, CA. Bill
was born July 19, 1939 in Youngstown, Ohio to Harold and
Mary Benjamin. Bill was preceded in death by his parents
Harold and Mary Benjamin, and his in-laws, George and
Eleanor Grandy.
Bill passed away peacefully at his home surrounded
by his wife of 54 years, Beverly “Weiser” Benjamin, and
family.
Bill Benjamin was President of Benjamin Mfg. Co.,
Inc. which he and his wife Beverly started in 1961. His
sons, Jeff and Rick, will continue his legacy at Benjamin
Mfg. Co., Inc. in Paramount, CA and Lithia Springs, GA.
In 1967, he started Benjamin Mfg. Co. in Downey, CA.
Bill began thermoforming parts on machinery he designed
and built himself since the type of machinery that he
envisioned was not available for purchase. Bill continued
to design and build several of these machines which are
still in use at his plants in California and Georgia. Bill also
designed and built a two-station biforcator thermoformer.
Bill has six patented products and three trademarks.
His first registered trademark was for his “Lustre-Lav”
which was made from the forerunner of DR Acrylic ABS
material. This material remains a big part of the spa and
plumbing industries today. In 1980, a second plant was
opened in Lithia Springs, GA. In 2003, Bill was awarded
Thermoformer of the Year by the SPE Thermoforming
Division where he also served several terms as a member
of that group’s Board of Directors. Bill is survived by three children: Jeff and Toddy
Benjamin of Rossmoor, CA; Laurie “Benjamin” and
Mike Pike of Palm Desert, CA; Rick and Lisa Benjamin
of Bellflower, CA; six grandchildren: Aubrey “Luas”
(John) Weston and Amber Luas (Laurie Pike), Whitney
“Benjamin” (Chad) Wilkinson, Kayla Benjamin, and
Patrick Benjamin (Rick Benjamin), and Farren Benjamin
(Jeff Benjamin); brother, Robert Benjamin of Chandler,
AZ, sister, Cindy Benjamin of Bellflower, CA, and sisterin-law and her husband, Carol “Grandy” and Robbie
Bertocchi, of Douglasville, GA.
In lieu of flowers, the family requests donations be made
to: Bill Benjamin Memorial Scholarship Fund, (checks
made out to: SPE TF Division, P.O. Box 471, Lindale, GA
30147. x
2012 Parts
V Winn
This year’s Parts Competition saw entries from as far away as Ecuador and as close as the Conference host-city, Grand Rapids,
Michigan. From what this year lacked in quantity, it certainly made up for in quality of submissions. With a balance of small,
design-challenging thin-gauge applications and large, complex assembled heavy-gauge parts, the Competition judges had no
easy task in selecting the winners. The similarities ended there as thin-gauge winners were picked for efficiency of material use
withIndustrial
increased functionality.
Bigger was certainly better as all the heavy-gauge winners consisted of large-panel forming with
Roll-Fed Category
integrated assembly techniques. I am proud to have been a part of this year’s Parts Competition and look forward to seeing what
newGold
and innovative
Winner submissions will be made in next year’s Conference in Atlanta, Georgia.
Plasticos Ecuatorianos S.A. Silver Winner
— Eric Short, Chair, Parts Competition
Guayaquil, Ecuador
Vertically-Ribbed Cup
Placon Corporation
Madison, Wisconsin
Evolutions™ Deli Container
Industrial Roll-Fed
Bronze Winner
Amros Industries, Inc.
Cleveland, Ohio
Centerpiece Ice Sculpture Drip Pan
Bronze Winner
Centerpiece Ice Sculpture Drip Pan was designed for a world known ice sculpting artist wh
also a distributor of many unique tools and accessories made specifically for the ice sculpt
industry.
Silver Winner
Amros Industries, Inc.
Cleveland, Ohio
The main objective of this custom design was to create and build an attractive container w
will be able to hold a centerpiece ice sculpture with an average weight of 200 lbs, collect 2
gallons of water from the melting ice and be presentable enough to be the centerpiece of
party table.
Critical Elements of Design
• Designed for leak resistance
Our two-piece partCenterpiece
design incorporates strategically placed top and bottom reinforcing rib
Placon
Corporation
is capable
of supporting
up toand
250 lbs of
weight.engages with a tight
o Perimeter inside seal is the
primary
seal
fully
Product: Cup, vertically ribbed
Centerpiece Ice Sculpture Drip Pan is made out of .040” rigid PVC and runs on the inline
Plasticos Ecuatorianos
Madison,
Wisconsin
Ice
Sculpture
o In addition
to tight fitting thermoformer.
lid, corner
snap
allows container to stay close
Capacidad: 6oz.
impacts and drops (company internal Drip
testing/findings).
S.A.
Color: Natural
Pan
Evolutions™
• Designed for tamper-evidence and resistance
Weight:
1.7g
Guayaquil, Ecuador
Deli
Container
o Corner
snap developed to securely hold the two flanges together.
o Tight lid fit combined with a small lid flange that is turned downward a
Vertically-Ribbed
Product description
below
a small
base
perimeter
rib makes
access
A product designed
for
the
consumer
sector,
disposable,
less
weight
and
greater
strength
in difficult.
Cup
o
Lid
flange
is
disguised
by
visually
blending
with
other perimeter “light c
their walls
edges”.
• Designed
easy-opening
customer
forCritical
elementsbyofthe
design
o OnceAsseparated,
the
corner
lid snap
has been considered flange
criticaland
elements
ofgeometry can be graspe
opening.
design the structured form of the container
• Designed forwalls,
strength
which act as reinforcement.
o Base bottom corners are multi-radius fillets which add structural streng
simple chamfers.

o Design contains no fragile perforations orslit features found on compe
products.

Gold Winner
Congratulations to all 2012 Winners!!!
Competition
ners V
Heavy-Gauge
Pressure
Heavy-Gauge
Vacuum
Heavy Gauge - Vacuum
Gold Winner
AMD Plastics
Euclid, Ohio
Agricultural Equipment Hood
Judges’ Award
Craft Originators, Inc./
Tasus Group
Hamilton, Ontario,
Canada
Gold Winner
Intended Use
• OEM, four piece hood assembly for newly designed Apache Sprayer
Critical elements of Design
• Large parts – final hood measuring 93.25 inches x 49.5 inches x 56.13 inches
• Temperature controlled tooling
• Deep and shallow draws. Side panels require large area of sheet and “bag” into a
particularly small draw on the tool
AMD Plastics
Euclid, Ohio
Gold Winner
Material Used
• Allen ALEXTRA-MV, a coextruded Polycarbonate copolymer capped, PC/ABS
•
•
Agricultural
Equipment Hood
Reduction in previous metal and fiberglass hood weight by 140 lbs.
Utilization of an in-molded color-highly weatherable copolymer, with high heat
resistance and durability allowed transformation from FRP and metal.
Silver Winner
Hampel
Corporation
Germantown, Wisconsin
Dairy Calf House
Fiat 500 Dr Dre
Speakers
SMI
San Diego, California
Innovative Aspects
People’s Choice
Award
Medical Device
Enclosure
͸
Silver Winner
Molded Plastic Industries, Inc.
Holt, Michigan
Pressure Formed CNG Tank Cover
Silver Winner
The critical elements of design were achieving a styled design with molded-in features which
would protect the Compressed Natural Gas tank from the daily abuse of the panels in their
service life. Alternate designs of fiberglass and metal we considered. However neither material
offered the flexibility of design to achieve styling offered utilizing the pressure forming process.
Silver Winner
Intended Use
The lead design team of Murray Design, LLC (MurrayDesign@ymail.com) developed the
designs to meet the customer’s initial styling requirement with the modularity for
In 1981 this thermoforming company first introduced a proprietary product line consistingconceptual
of
future variant applications – such as tool boxes and larger CNG tanks. Molded Plastic provided
thermoformed plastic housing used principally for raising calves in the dairy industry. Today,
the design assistance necessary to achieve the customers styling requirements, panel
performance,
while maintaining manufacturability and serviceability.
with an installed base of over 400,000 units world-wide, these dairy housing units are
responsible for providing an optimal environment for accelerated growth to nearly 2,000,000
Molded Plastic chose CASTEK Aluminum, Incorporated of Elyria, Ohio to build the forming tools
as the lead-time for the three (3) tools was less than eight (8) weeks. The tool design team
calves annually.
Hampel Corporation
Germantown, Wisconsin
Molded Plastic
Industries, Inc.
Holt, Michigan
consisted of Tom Petek of CASTEK, Ed Bearse of Advance Plastic Consultants, LLC and Frank
Phillips, Jr. of Molded Plastic. Frequent meetings face to face or by WEB EX assured the tools
were delivered on time.
Innovations
Part Size and Depth of Draw
The single most innovative aspect of this product is its 67” depth of draw. The part measures
98.5” long x 60.5” wide x 57” tall and is formed from a single sheet of high molecular weight
polyethylene (HMWPE). The raw sheet is .375” thick and the finished material thickness ranging
from.10” - .200” thick.
Dairy Calf Housing
Photos courtesy of Dallager Photography
Pressure Formed
CNG Tank Cover
ͳ͵
SMI - San Diego, CA
Medical Device
Enclosure
ͺ
Have an Idea
for an Article
for TQ?
Submission Guidelines
• We are a technical
journal. We strive for
objective, technical
articles that help advance
our readers’ understanding
of thermoforming (process,
tooling, machinery, ancillary
services); in other words,
no commercials.
• Article length: 1,000 2,000 words. Look to past
articles for guidance.
• Format: .doc or .docx
Artwork: hi-res images are
encouraged (300 dpi) with
appropriate credits.
Send all submissions to
Conor Carlin, Editor
cpcarlin@gmail.com
MARK YOUR CALENDAR!
September 9 – 12, 2013
22nd Annual Thermoforming Conference
Atlanta, Georgia
Co-Chair
Bret Joslyn
Joslyn Manufacturing
9400 Valley View Road
Macedonia, OH 44056
330.467.8111
bret@joslyn-mfg.com
Co-Chair
Eric Short
Premier Material Concepts (PMC)
2040 Industrial Drive
Findlay, OH 45840
248.705.2830
eshort@buypmc.com
Cut Sheet Technical Chair
Roger Jean
Premier Material Concepts (PMC)
Findlay, OH 45840
567.208.9758
rjean@buypmc.com
RENAISSANCE WAVERLY HOTEL
& COBB GALLERIA
For Reservations:
1-888-391-8724
Request SPE Room Rate of $169.00
Roll Fed Technical Chair
Mark Strachan
UVU Technologies
6600 E. Rogers Circle
Boca Raton, FL 33487
754.224.7513
mark@uvutech.com
Parts Competition
Jim Arnet
Kydex Company
3604 Welborne Lane
Flower Mound, TX 75022
972.213.6499
arnetj@kydex.com
SAVE THE DATE!!
www.thermoformingdivision.com
Need help
with your
technical school
or college
expenses?
I
f you or someone you know is
working towards a career in
the plastic industry, let the SPE
Thermoforming Division help support
those education goals.
Within this past year alone, our
organization has awarded multiple
scholarships! Get involved and take
advantage of available support from
your plastic industry!
Here is a partial list of schools
and colleges whose students have
benefited from the Thermoforming
Division Scholarship Program:
• UMASS Lowell
• San Jose State
• Pittsburg State
• Penn State Erie
• University of Wisconsin
• Michigan State
• Ferris State
• Madison Technical College
• Clemson University
• Illinois State
• Penn College
Start by completing the application
forms at www.thermoformingdivision.
com or at www.4spe.com.
x
REDUCE! REUSE! RECYCLE!
Executive
Committee
2012 - 2014
2012 - 2014 THERMOFORMING DIVISION ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Chair
Phil Barhouse
Chair Elect
Mark Strachan
Secretary
Bret Joslyn
Councilor
Roger Kipp
Treasurer
James Alongi
Prior Chair
Ken Griep
CHAIR
Phil Barhouse
Spartech Packaging Technologies
100 Creative Way, PO Box 128
Ripon, WI 54971
(920) 748-1119
Fax (920) 748-9466
phil.barhouse@spartech.com
CHAIR ELECT
Mark Strachan
Global Thermoforming
Technologies
1550 SW 24th Avenue
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312
(754) 224-7513
mark@global-tti.com
TREASURER
James Alongi
MAAC Machinery
590 Tower Blvd.
Carol Stream, IL 60188
(630) 665-1700
Fax (630) 665-7799
jalongi@maacmachinery.com
SECRETARY
Bret Joslyn
Macedonia, OH 44056
(330) 467-8111
Fax (330) 467-6574
bret@joslyn-mfg.com
COUNCILOR WITH TERM
ENDING 2015
Roger Kipp
McClarin Plastics
P. O. Box 486, 15 Industrial Drive
Hanover, PA 17331
(717) 637-2241 x4003
Fax (717) 637-4811
rkipp@mcclarinplastics.com
PRIOR CHAIR
Ken Griep
Portage Casting & Mold
2901 Portage Road
Portage, WI 53901
(608) 742-7137
Fax (608) 742-2199
ken@pcmwi.com
Finance
Bob Porsche
Nominating
Tim Hamilton
AARC
Brian Ray
2012 Conference
Grand Rapids, MI
Haydn Forward
Lola Carere
Communications
Clarissa Schroeder
Technical Committees
Newsletter / Technical
Editor
Conor Carlin
Antec
Brian Winton
2013 Conference
Atlanta, GA
Bret Joslyn
Membership
Haydn Forward
OPCOM
Mark Strachan
Student Programs
Brian Winton
Conference
Coordinator
Lesley Kyle
Processing
Haydn Forward
Materials
Roger Jean
Machinery
Don Kruschke
Publications /
Advertising
Laura Pichon
Recognition
Juliet Goff
Board of Directors
MACHINERY COMMITTEE
MATERIALS COMMITTEE
James Alongi
MAAC Machinery
590 Tower Blvd.
Carol Stream, IL 60188
T: 630.665.1700
F: 630.665.7799
jalongi@maacmachinery.com
Jim Armor
Armor & Associates
16181 Santa Barbara Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
T: 714.846.7000
F: 714.846.7001
jimarmor@aol.com
Roger Fox
The Foxmor Group
1119 Wheaton Oaks Court
Wheaton, IL 60187
T: 630.653.2200
F: 630.653.1474
rfox@foxmor.com
Jim Arnet
Kydex LLC
3604 Welbourne Lane
Flower Mount, TX 75022
T: 972.724.2628
arnetj@kydex.com
Don Kruschke (Chair)
Plastics Machinery Group
31005 Bainbridge Rd. #6
Solon, OH 44739
T: 440.498.4000
F: 440.498.4001
donk@plasticsmg.com
Mike Sirotnak
Solar Products
228 Wanaque Avenue
Pompton Lakes, NJ 07442
T: 973.248.9370
F: 973.835.7856
msirotnak@solarproducts.com
Brian Ray
Ray Products
1700 Chablis Drive
Ontario, CA 91761
T: 909.390.9906
F: 909.390.9984
brianr@rayplastics.com
Brian Winton
Lyle Industries, Inc.
4144 W. Lyle Road
Beaverton, MI 48612
T: 989-435-7714 x 32
F: 989-435-7250
bwinton@lyleindustries.com
Phil Barhouse
Spartech Packaging
Technologies
100 Creative Way
PO Box 128
Ripon, WI 54971
T: 920.748.1119
F: 920.748.9466
phil.barhouse@spartech.com
Lola Carere
C and K Plastics, Inc.
512 Fox Creek Crossing
Woodstock, GA 30188
T: 732.841.0376
lcarere@candkplastics.com
Juliet Goff
Kal Plastics
2050 East 48th Street
Vernon, CA 90058-2022
T: 323.581.6194
juliet@kal-plastics.com
Tim Hamilton
Spartech Corporation
11650 Lakeside Crossing Court
Maryland Heights, MO 63146
T: 314.569.7407
tim.hamilton@spartech.com
Donald Hylton
McConnell Company
646 Holyfield Highway
Fairburn, GA 30213
T: 678.772.5008
don@thermoformingmc.com
Roger P. Jean (Chair)
Rowmark/PMC
PO Box 1605
Findlay, OH 45840
T: 567.208.9758
rjean@rowmark.com
Laura Pichon
Ex-Tech Plastics
PO Box 576
11413 Burlington Road
Richmond, IL 60071
T: 847.829.8124
F: 815.678.4248
lpichon@extechplastics.com
Bret Joslyn
Macedonia, OH 44056
T: 330.467.8111
F: 330.467.6574
bret@joslyn-mfg.com
Robert G. Porsche
General Plastics
2609 West Mill Road
Milwaukee, WI 53209
T: 414-351-1000
F: 414-351-1284
bob@genplas.com
Stephen Murrill
Profile Plastics
65 S. Waukegan
Lake Bluff, IL 60044
T: 847.604.5100 x29
F: 847.604.8030
smurrill@thermoform.com
Clarissa Schroeder
Auriga Polymers
1551 Dewberry Road
Spartanburg, SC 29307
T: 864.579.5047
F: 864.579.5288
clarissa.schroeder@us.indorama.net
Mark Strachan
Global Thermoforming
Technologies
1550 SW 24th Avenue
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312
T: 754.224.7513
globalmarks@hotmail.com
Eric Short
Premier Material Concepts
11165 Horton Road
Holly, Michigan 48442
T: 248.705.2830
eshort@rowmark.com
Jay Waddell
Plastics Concepts & Innovations
1127 Queensborough Road
Suite 102
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
T: 843.971.7833
F: 843.216.6151
jwaddell@plasticoncepts.com
PROCESSING COMMITTEE
Haydn Forward (Chair)
Specialty Manufacturing Co.
6790 Nancy Ridge Road
San Diego, CA 92121
T: 858.450.1591
F: 858.450.0400
hforward@smi-mfg.com
Ken Griep
Portage Casting & Mold
2901 Portage Road
Portage, WI 53901
T: 608.742.7137
F: 608.742.2199
ken@pcmwi.com
Director Emeritus
Art Buckel
McConnell Company
3452 Bayonne Drive
San Diego, CA 92109
T: 858.273.9620
artbuckel@thermoformingmc.com
Director Emeritus
Gwen Mathis
PO Box 471
Lindale, GA 30147-0471
T: 706.235.9298
F: 706.295.4276
gmathis224@aol.com
Steve Hasselbach
CMI Plastics
222 Pepsi Way
Ayden, NC 28416
T: 252.746.2171
F: 252.746.2172
steve@cmiplastics.com
Roger Kipp
McClarin Plastics
15 Industrial Drive
PO Box 486
Hanover, PA 17331
T: 717.637.2241
F: 717.637.2091
rkipp@mcclarinplastics.com
Thermoforming
Quarterly®
Sponsor Index
FOURTH QUARTER 2012
VOLUME 31 n NUMBER 4
These sponsors enable us to publish Thermoforming Quarterly
n Allen..................................25
n Brown Machine....................23
n CMT Materials.......................3
n GN Plastics.........................30
n GPEC 2013.........................33
n Kiefel.................................25
n KMT.....................................7
n Kydex.......... Inside Back Cover
n MAAC Machinery....................7
n McClarin Plastics..................30
n Mitsubishi Electric................22
n Nova Chemicals.....................8
n PCI....................................34
n Plastics Machinery Group......34
n PMC............. Inside Back Cover
n Portage Casting & Mold.........30
n Primex Plastics......................3
n Productive Plastics...............25
n Profile Plastics Corp. ...........25
n PTi...............Inside Front Cover
n Ray Products.......................25
n Solar Products.....................30
n Spartech............................32
n Tempco..............................36
n TPS...................................32
n TSL....................................19
n Weco Int’l. Inc. . ...................3
n Zed Industries.....................25
Thermoforming Division Membership Benefits
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Access to industry knowledge from one central location: www.thermoformingdivision.com.
Subscription to Thermoforming Quarterly, voted “Publication of the Year” by SPE National.
Exposure to new ideas and trends from across the globe
New and innovative part design at the Parts Competition.
Open dialogue with the entire industry at the annual conference.
Discounts, discounts, discounts on books, seminars and conferences.
For managers: workshops and presentations tailored specifically to the needs of your operators.
For operators: workshops and presentations that will send you home with new tools to improve your performance, make your job easier and help the
company’s bottom line.
Join D25 today!